Civic Engagement: the Martin
County Multi-Stakeholder
Consensus Process
Roy Carriker and David Mulkey
Food and Resource Economics Department
University of Florida
Question: What is this
presentation about?
• Answer: Lessons we have learned as
consultants to and facilitators for the
“Martin County Multi-Stakeholder
Consensus Committee.”
About Martin County, Florida
•
•
•
•
Located on Florida’s lower east coast.
Population: 100,000
Moderate growth rate.
Much open, rural, and agricultural land in western
portion of county.
• Sandwiched between two rapidly growing
counties.
• North of Palm Beach County, pop. 900,000;
Broward County, pop. 1,300,000; Miami-Dade,
pop. 2,000,000.
Background (before we became
involved)
• August 2004: a community leader (former
county commissioner) formed non-profit
“Friends of Martin County (Friends)”.
– Purpose: to foster public discussion and build
consensus on County’s growth management
options.
– Posture: will be non-partisan, non-political,
open, and inclusive.
Motivation for “Friends”
• Fear of “Browardization.”
• Belief that desirable future for county will
require broad, active participation of public.
• Perception that long history of political
discord keeps county from “getting its act
together.”
• Belief that hope lies in conflict resolution
and a collaborative search for consensus.
Precipitating Event
• Proposal before county commission to authorize
ballot initiative to approve bond-issue for county
land acquisition program.
• “Friends” say commission has options:
– Schedule referendum without citizen input.
– Create “another” political task force.
– OR work with inclusive, grass-roots “MultiStakeholder Group” (led by “Friends”) to develop
program for land in western Martin County.
“Friends” Proposal to County
Commission
• “Friends” will convene a non-political
multi-stakeholder consensus process.
–
–
–
–
–
Steering Committee
“Stakeholders”
Staff of Nature Conservancy
County Commission
Voters
Stated Goals of MSG
• Develop broad consensus on “Western
Lands Program.”
• Provide grass-roots support for that program
(including referendum if commission
authorizes it).
• Help commission implement Western Lands
Program, if approved.
Steering Committee
• Initial composition:
–
–
–
–
“Friends” founder and former commissioner.
Officer of local Audubon chapter.
Hospital executive.
Builder/Developer/Realtor.
• Tasks:
– Convene stakeholders.
– Manage “inclusive, fair, consensus-building process.”
– Report results to the commission and to the public.
Now What?
• Commission endorses “Friends” proposal.
• “Friends” decide they need “…an
experienced, outside, neutral facilitator to
run the stakeholder meetings.”
• We were contacted by County Extension
Director, who was, by now, assisting the
“Friends” steering committee.
Questions to Ask of Ourselves
• Are we sufficiently trained and experienced
in complex, multi-party problem solving?
• Are we neutral and can we remain so?
• Is this situation “bigger” than our capacity
to convene and facilitate a process?
• Would our role be viable—given that we
were approached after the process began?
Initial Challenges
• Need to reframe stated purpose of the MSG.
– Initial statements focused too narrowly on “a
lands program” for western Martin County.
– Did not include consensus on “What do we
want to achieve”?
– Did not offer chance to consider alternatives to
a county land acquisition program.
Initial Challenges
• Necessary for Steering Committee to
become a team.
– Needed active participation by all steering
committee members.
– Needed expand membership to include
agricultural landowner interests.
– Needed to include facilitators as members of
the team.
Initial Challenges
• Needed a “situation assessment.”
–
–
–
–
–
What are the issues?
What is the history of disputes?
Who are the contending or interested parties?
What are the agendas of these parties?
What is the legal, institutional, policy context?
• State law requires local comprehensive plan.
• State law requires state approval of local plans.
• State law requires counties to implement plans.
Activities of MSG
• November: organizational meeting of about 25
“stakeholders” plus steering committee.
– We facilitated the meeting.
– Discussed interests of each participant with respect to
land use in the county.
– Discussed definition and feasibility of an inclusive,
non-partisan, non-political consensus process.
– Decided (by consensus) to schedule open meeting with
presentations by county planner, tax assessor, and water
manager.
Activities of MSG
• November, second meeting:
– About 160 people attended.
– All signed in and provided contact information.
– Speakers provided information about the
county comprehensive plan, land prices, and
land use patterns in the county.
– The group agreed, by consensus, to meet again:
• To further define or revise goals of process.
• To decide on next steps for process.
Activities of MSG
• December: About 60 people attend.
• Two informational presentations.
• Eight breakout groups:
– Volunteer facilitators.
– Task #1: Get group consensus on “Our worst fears for
the future of Martin County.”
– Task #2: Get group consensus on “Our fondest hopes
for the future of Martin County.”
• Groups report back—schedule follow-up meeting.
Activities of MSG
• January: About 60 people attend.
• Facilitated discussion with group as a whole:
– Amend and adopt “prospective consensus statements”
• Regarding “Our worst fears.”
• Regarding “Our fondest hopes.
• Breakout groups: “What information do we need
in order to pursue our ‘fondest hopes’?”
Activities of MSG
• February meeting: 60 people.
• Facilitated whole group discussion:
– Consensus on topics for informational meetings.
– Suggestions for speakers on the topics identified.
• Commissioned Steering Committee to arrange
informational meetings on the following topics:
–
–
–
–
Public land acquisition programs.
Description of lands already in government ownership.
Current comprehensive plan and its requirements.
Factors affecting viability of agriculture in the county.
Activities of MSG
• April, May, June: Workshop-type
informational meetings to be conducted.
• Steering committee has not tried to plan
beyond the present series of informational
meetings.
Our “Lessons Learned”
• This work is labor-intensive: big time
commitment.
• Important to be involved early in the
process.
• Given history of in-fighting:
– Steering Committee must be representative.
– Facilitator must enforce ground rules.
– Process must get all views on the table.
Our “Lessons Learned”
• Regarding ground rules:
– Important to get stakeholder “buy-in” to ground
rules early in the process.
– Stakeholders must believe the process is fair:
buy-in to ground rules is essential to credibility
of process.
– Once buy-in is achieved, most participants will
“play by the rules.”
Our “Lessons Learned”
• “Consensus” requires definition.
– 50% plus one is not consensus.
– A single holdout among 60 participants must not be
allowed to stall the process.
– Facilitator must work hard to find consensus.
• Cannot launch a consensus process unless all
related issues and options are on the table (ie.,
don’t begin by naming the outcome for which
consensus is sought).
Our “Lessons Learned”
• Facilitators help with framing and reframing.
– Decisions on “what we should do” must first
address “what do we wish to achieve.”
– Topics for discussion must be relevant for the
task at hand, but must not be arbitrarily limited.
Our “Lessons Learned”
• Facilitators can help instill realistic expectations.
– Our participants tend to presume that there is a
“solution”, and that the “answers” will be forthcoming
if we invite the right speakers.
– Participants need to revise their expectations of the
process: land use issues will be with them forever, and
the process needs to be on-going, iterative, and
interactive.
– Expectations may become more sophisticated as
participants gain knowledge.
Our “Lessens Learned”
• A neutral facilitator is absolutely essential for a
process of this type to function.
– Neutrality is a necessary condition.
– Facilitator is necessary to “protect the process” by
enforcing ground rules for the benefit of everyone.
– Facilitator plays key role in designing the process.
– Facilitator makes sure everyone participates: more than
opportunity to participate, but actual participation.